Law & Disorder —

AT&T keen on Verizon/Google net neutrality proposal

Reactions from the Internet business are trickling in on the Google/Verizon …

A "reasonable framework," AT&T calls the Verizon/Google net neutrality proposal. The comment came from AT&T's Ralph de la Vega, the telco's CEO for wireless, speaking at a technology and telecommunications conference in Boston yesterday. De la Vega says the company supports most of the concept.

On Monday, Verizon and Google published a set of recommendations to Congress for an open Internet law. The suggestions include exempting wireless broadband from any kind of nondiscrimination and prioritization rules, plus an exemption carve-out for "additional or differentiated services" an ISP might offer.

"It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop," both companies explained, "but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options."

Begging the question

While the debate over this proposal over the Web has been pretty viral, only a trickle of reaction has come from companies that might be affected by these rules.

Facebook has an official statement that has been making the rounds:

"Facebook continues to support principles of net neutrality for both landline and wireless networks," the company says. "Preserving an open Internet that is accessible to innovators—regardless of their size or wealth—will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the content and services delivered through their Internet connections."

That's not a direct commentary on the Verizon/Google concept, although this is:

"It is certainly concerning to me that there is language being used about the 'public Internet'," a former Facebook employee told The New York Times. "That begs the question about what is not the public Internet."

Meanwhile Barry Diller of IAC has called the plan a sham. The proposal "doesn't preserve 'net neutrality,' full stop, or anything like it," he commented to the Times.

Diller, who worked with Federal Communications Commission Chair Julius Genachowski for a spell back in Genachowski's dot-com days, is also a member of the Open Internet Coalition—a consortium of companies and public interest groups that support net neutrality.

The coalition includes Facebook, IAC, eBay, Netflix, and Google, as well as various public interest groups. OIC hasn't published a statement on the Google/Verizon proposal on its website, although an interview with Diller on the concept is front and center.

Does not alleviate

As for those public interest groups, over two dozen of them released a statement this morning urging Genachowski to pretty much ignore the Google/Verizon proposal and forge ahead with his plan to partially classify ISPs as common carriers.

"The Google/Verizon announcement does not in any way alleviate the need for the Commission to act to protect consumers, small businesses, students, creators, innovators, investors and others that depend on an open, vibrant Internet," their letter to the FCC declared.

No word yet on what the FCC is going to do about all this. Only one Commissioner, Michael Copps, has released an official statement on the proposal, and he's against it.

"Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward," Copps declared. "That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

51 Reader Comments

AT&T going along with this... why am I not surprised? You know what is somewhat disturbing? The fact that whenever I try and engage any of my tech friends about net-neutrality, they just seem to glaze over. They either don't know about it or don't care. This is one of the singe most important issues facing the freedom of the internet. And people still regard the internet as a luxury item you pay for, like cable TV. What they don't seem to understand is how entrenched the net is in our daily lives, and it should be seen as a necessary public utility, not as a luxury. It's very frustrating and I fear that lack of public support or knowledge will leave it in the hands of multi-billion-dollar corporations who do not have the public interest in mind. And stop with the "do no evil" crap. It was a joke when they first said it. It's just pitiful now.

AT&T likes it too? Now we really know consumers are getting screwed! This is going to evolve into something like the Super Skrull: it'll combine the pricing of Verizon with the service quality of AT&T and the privacy regard of Google. Can't wait to see the finished product!

This isn't surprising. And the AT&T imprimatur on any such discussion is most certainly not consumer-friendly.

What is more troubling is the silence from media companies (except for Barry Diller).

It's not hard to imagine the internet, one day, being just like cable TV: premium data for a premium price. With what comprises "premium" being, as yet, undetermined.

The internet, instead of being a commodity provider (among other things), is being commoditized. For the cost of your "regular" internet connection, you can watch all the Golden Girls episodes you want (with commercials). Or, for an extra $120/year, you can see the hot new TV show everyone at work is talking about.

Sad that the potential good that the net can do will be frittered away in some corporate bank account(s).

AT&T likes it too? Now we really know consumers are getting screwed! This is going to evolve into something like the Super Skrull: it'll combine the pricing of Verizon with the service quality of AT&T and the privacy regard of Google. Can't wait to see the finished product!

I will soon pay $75 (instead of $50) for 2MBps (instead of 6MBps) meanwhile getting calls from carpet suppliers the next day who saw me on Google searching for new rugs after getting caught dumping bodies in the landfill. So you tell me, how is Fat Tony here suppose to get things done?

I imagine a hot, summer day....it's around 2pm. The sun is glaring down and you can smell the hot-dogs cooking outside the ballpark as a crowd of kids huddle around the player entrance, looking to see their heroes leaving in hopes of getting an autograph. Scandal has shocked the game recently, but some are still hopeful.

As Google slowly walks out of the player locker-room into the street outside, his head held low and trying hard not to meet anyone's eyes directly, a little boy walks up and tugs on his pants-leg.

"Say it ain't so Google....say it ain't so." the little boy says, tears glittering his eyes.

Google says nothing, but sadly looks away. Turning his back to the little boy, he continues down the path he set for himself and walks to oblivion.

AT&T likes it too? Now we really know consumers are getting screwed! This is going to evolve into something like the Super Skrull: it'll combine the pricing of Verizon with the service quality of AT&T and the privacy regard of Google. Can't wait to see the finished product!

LOL. No, seriously, this made me actually laugh out loud. What a nightmare you have envisioned!

AT&T going along with this... why am I not surprised? You know what is somewhat disturbing? The fact that whenever I try and engage any of my tech friends about net-neutrality, they just seem to glaze over. They either don't know about it or don't care.

That is because, everyone's overreaction around here notwithstanding, it's not really that important of an issue.

AT&T going along with this... why am I not surprised? You know what is somewhat disturbing? The fact that whenever I try and engage any of my tech friends about net-neutrality, they just seem to glaze over. They either don't know about it or don't care.

That is because, everyone's overreaction around here notwithstanding, it's not really that important of an issue.

You sir are about to be bent over and take it from some nerds who would beg to differ (in the comment section at least)

AT&T going along with this... why am I not surprised? You know what is somewhat disturbing? The fact that whenever I try and engage any of my tech friends about net-neutrality, they just seem to glaze over. They either don't know about it or don't care.

That is because, everyone's overreaction around here notwithstanding, it's not really that important of an issue.

AT&T going along with this... why am I not surprised? You know what is somewhat disturbing? The fact that whenever I try and engage any of my tech friends about net-neutrality, they just seem to glaze over. They either don't know about it or don't care.

That is because, everyone's overreaction around here notwithstanding, it's not really that important of an issue.

@rombuu I can agree that it's not an important issue to you, and I can agree that it's almost impossible to get people these days to do anything unless they feel they're being individually singled out, but it's still an important issue. /end

Like a poster above I've talked to friends I have in the industry. I get polar opposites. Either they care so much this is driving them near crazy or they shrug and go back to what they were doing. Doesn't seem to be any middle ground at all. As for the masses maybe someone needs to "dumb" this issue down for mass consumption so they can see what people are fighting for and against. My parents for instance have no idea what this all about, and I can't seem to explain it to them in a manner that generates anything other than "I don't understand" looks. They weren't keen on DPI though..

Or maybe rombuu is right and it's only important to a few people here at Ars..

AT&T going along with this... why am I not surprised? You know what is somewhat disturbing? The fact that whenever I try and engage any of my tech friends about net-neutrality, they just seem to glaze over. They either don't know about it or don't care.

That is because, everyone's overreaction around here notwithstanding, it's not really that important of an issue.

Sure, not that big of an issue -- that's why some of the worlds largest public companies are pouring billions of dollars into efforts to get net neutrality abolished -- or implemented on their terms.

AT&T going along with this... why am I not surprised? You know what is somewhat disturbing? The fact that whenever I try and engage any of my tech friends about net-neutrality, they just seem to glaze over. They either don't know about it or don't care.

That is because, everyone's overreaction around here notwithstanding, it's not really that important of an issue.

@rombuu: either this is a troll comment, in which case I am equally saddened and confused. Or you aren't looking at the scope of the issue, in which case I ask you to please look at this a bit closer. We are talking about how big companies are jockeying to control the internet even more than they already do. Issues at stake: priority routing of traffic (talk about killing the little guy). Throttling bandwidth??? Come on. I mean, you're okay with that? Seriously? Just wait. Wait until the internet behaves like the deregulated electric companies that threw California into ruin. "Oh, you want faster internet today because you need to work? Well, our network is currently overloaded. But if you'd like to pay a bit more for your service today we can prioritize you to the top." Or, "You want to shop for something? Well, we will route you to the folks who pay us the most in ad revenue." Or, "What news outlet will you trust? How about these? These are our favorites because their political agendas fit ours. As for the others? Well, you can still see them, but they'll be very slow and very difficult to see." This is not hyperbole. We are already on this road. The Google/Verizon plan, all AT&T approved, will just make it legal. And difficult for the government to regulate. (And these issues are just the tip, just the big money-making headline issues. There so many others that it's quite daunting and a little depressing to ponder.)

I am so happy the FCC pulled the plug on the back-room negotiations. What a circus.

Hilarious! Oh, let's see. AT&T endorses *any* agreement that strengthens the *idea* that the largest companies in Telcom/Web co-operate????? I know the GOP/Bush fired and gutted the FTC and EPA, but isn't the rethinking under way? We don't need bigger, we need Commissions that take action. Take the leap of faith now, before a billion dollar voter 'education' program has brainwashed the public into giving up their hard earned bucks to the only game in town. "ATT has the fewest dropped calls" ? where was the government when that lie was advertised?

Let's see if Comcast weighs in tomorrow with a 'cautious endorsement' as well, 'demonstrating' that monopolies can get along just fine, and government's continued GOP/Bush help in scaling up monopolies isn't needed. Then 'their' economies will rise for another few months until the whole freakin deck of cards monopolies are building again drop to the ground, making a few more billionaires on short term capital gains betting on the downside, and then asking for Congressional policies to 'strengthen' American 'industry(monopolies)'.. with a public bailout, or 'protection' for the monopolies.

None that's ZERO of these agreements foster small business development, innovation, open competition, disruptive ideas in this ailing economy.

Going back to 1950's school of economics isn't going to change things for the better. Embracing the change is.

We, the people, set policies by purchasing from many vendors, not 1 or 3 in collusion with one another.

what BS. monopolistic dictatorial corporations are not the efficient way to lead the economy. Nor are they whom we need to have 'set policies' .

The internet is the single most important utility we've ever had. For communication. For freedom of speech. For Innovation. For education. For entertainment. For the whole planet. How can any user sit on their hands and believe the corporations will actually act consistently and without greed? How can any of us watch this amazing tool become molested and transformed into something ugly? Something which only exists to make money? No, this needs regulation. Period. Just like the banks. Just like the housing market. Just like the electric companies. Because we have been shown, time and again, corporations will only act if it's in the interest of their bottom line. End of story.

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is comprised of corporate and government entities.

Please stop being ignorant. While the DoD (specifically ARPA) may have originated many of the technical underpinnings of what has become the internet, the plain fact of the matter is that what most people consider the internet is now and has always been a corporate entity (or more approriately, an interconnected series of corporate entities).

@flashoverride. Wow. That is quite an eye-opening list. And you make a very good point. However, if net neutrality becomes something which is regulated, which has laws with actual teeth, which is in place to protect the people using it, wouldn't it apply to all these companies on your list as well? And not just Verizon, Google and AT&T (which is what started this conversation)?

BTW: I love that people here are so informed. It makes for a great debate and conversation. Ars is about the only place I know of where issues like this come up and get some serious consideration.

Please stop being ignorant. While the DoD (specifically ARPA) may have originated many of the technical underpinnings of what has become the internet, the plain fact of the matter is that what most people consider the internet is now and has always been a corporate entity (or more approriately, an interconnected series of corporate entities).

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Internet isn't controlled by corporations, what they (at least I) am arguing is that they need to be regulated by the government so they don't turn the Internet into a bunch of wall gardens equal to what cable TV is like.

"However, if net neutrality becomes something which is regulated, which has laws with actual teeth, which is in place to protect the people using it, wouldn't it apply to all these companies on your list as well?"

Only on the access layer, and only in the United States (or products intended for the US market).

"I don't think anyone is arguing that the Internet isn't controlled by corporations, what they (at least I) am arguing is that they need to be regulated by the government so they don't turn the Internet into a bunch of wall gardens equal to what cable TV is like."

The problem is that the internet is a globally interconnected series of networks. It's not really regulated by anything right now except a series of standards put in place by various global corporations and bodies in order to have some semblance of interconnectedness (see SONET/SDH for an example of international telecom tomfoolery, or the eternal E1/T1 nonsense). One government decreeing anything won't really change how much of the internet works; it may only serve to restrict the access layer (read: your connection), and only in the country where its proposed.

One of the reasons I posted on this is that this is one of those issues that sets my hair on fire. Most people who consider themselves "geeks" or tech types really seem to be drawn more by the gadgets or by content stuff - programming, java, stuff like that. Very few seem to actually have a good grip on how the internet is built - the backhaul of it, the vast distances, the massive amount of cabling and electricity required; the bare bones telecom of it all. Did you know that ethernet (what everyone is trying to change their backhaul over to now) doesn't have a timing standard? One of the most fundamental aspects of conveying a digital signal from point a to point b and we're stuck with T1s to carry the clocking, because the ethernet working groups never figured to make enterprise grade IP into carrier grade IP. Of course, the ethernet signals were pumped onto the WAN through standard TDM - T1s, T3s, OC3s, etc - which carried the clocking, so they never thought about it.

"I don't think anyone is arguing that the Internet isn't controlled by corporations, what they (at least I) am arguing is that they need to be regulated by the government so they don't turn the Internet into a bunch of wall gardens equal to what cable TV is like."

The problem is that the internet is a globally interconnected series of networks. It's not really regulated by anything right now except a series of standards put in place by various global corporations and bodies in order to have some semblance of interconnectedness (see SONET/SDH for an example of international telecom tomfoolery, or the eternal E1/T1 nonsense). One government decreeing anything won't really change how much of the internet works; it may only serve to restrict the access layer (read: your connection), and only in the country where its proposed.

Well, that's the crux of the argument really -- who controls my connection to the 'net. If the government can regulate that part of the Internet then everything else will be fine because, as you've pointed out, it's a global network and no single government/corporation can control what information is put on the 'net. If there's information that is hosted on servers in Italy and their government wants to shut it down, that content is moved to servers that do not reside in Italy. If there is content hosts on a server controlled by a corporation and that corporation decides to censor that information, the information can get posted to another server owned by another corporation.

"However, if net neutrality becomes something which is regulated, which has laws with actual teeth, which is in place to protect the people using it, wouldn't it apply to all these companies on your list as well?"

Only on the access layer, and only in the United States (or products intended for the US market).

And that covers a lot of us posting here, including myself. I do understand it would not immediately affect anything done locally in other countries. But we are already behind on service/speed per dollar compared to many other nations.

In the days of dial-up, there was a lot of competition, which helped keep things pretty neutral. A lot of the neutrality issues have come up since many of us in the US have migrated to monopoly/duopoly broadband providers. The issues were really trumpeted since the time frame that AT&T declared they should be able to break neutrality, because Google shouldn't get to use their pipes for free (or some such nonsense).

So when I see AT&T liking something relating to network neutrality, you know it must be about as far from true neutrality as they think they can get. To the detriment of everyone who doesn't pay the premiums AT&T and others want to set up.

"will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the content" ~ Facebook

Exactly, despite what all mega corps say, they fear deeply becoming the next MySpace. That's just a fact. That's why we have idea patents, thats why we have these new clerical tax burdens on small business, thats why we have regulations that favor "rights holders" demands over evidence based accusations, thats why we have no anti-slap laws to prevent the "sue you out of business" corporate strategy, and thats why we now have this proposal.....

I hate say it; but the US, given it's current trajectory, will undoubtedly reach a tipping point in the near future. Pandering to large companies will never promote the level of innovation that brought it to the apex of the financial world. Small companies and startups are the disruptive force that promotes the evolution of markets. Remove any advantage for them, and you remove the economic pressures that brought about the innovations of the Industrial revolution, post WWII boom, and the Internet Revolution.